jpn of Seattle

He sure did. Let's see, he turned a surplus into an enduring deficit, even during the peak of an economic recovery that was almost unprecidented in its weakness, despite pouring hundreds of billions into a war...
Which leads us to the next "accomplishment:" The first president in our history to invade another nation based on false presences--and then totally screw up the planning and execution if it...
...which caused us to divert our attention from the real war on terror being fought in Afghanistan...

Meanwhile, due to irresponsible tax cuts we have a mountain of red ink staring at us, the world is pissed off at us in a way it hasn't been since before WWII.

We are now a nation much poorer, despised overseas, and much less secure than before Bush took office.

jpn of Seattle

Yeah. He picks a wrong course and by god, sticks with it.

Wonderful.

jpn of Seattle

How about the 2005 Bankruptcy law? Wasn't that great?

At the bidding of the credit card industry, the Republicans passed the law to make it harder for middle class people to declare bankruptcy, even if their economic stress was caused by catastrophic illness (the Republicans are also against health care reform).

It meant about an additional ten percent of profits for the industry, or about another $3 billion to add to their $30 billions a year the credit card industry was already raking in.

Wasn't that great?

We owe Bush and the Republicans SO much...

Kazikli Bey

If a leader of a country responded to what the majority always wanted, there would be no taxes. A leader is put into power to govern for what he believes is best for the country.

__________________

jpn of Seattle

What president didn't see the market hit historic highs during his presidency? Even Herbert Hoover presided over an historic high.
There may have been a few, but on the whole, bagging a "historic high" is pretty much a given:


Unemployment is at historic lows? So that must mean job creation is just running full out, right? Or maybe that people have given up looking for work? Which is it, so you suppose?



Do you hear that!?! That's the sound of the "Bush Boom!"

Yeah, I don't hear it either...

Caltex

Right, because our system of government magically changed over night and the President now Passes the budget, the Congress has nothing to do with it.

A few facts for you. Bush took office in January of 2001. THe Federal Budget for the 2001 fiscal year was passed through Congress and signed by Bill Clinton before Bush ever took office. The surplus was gone by the end of 2001. Bush inherited a deficit, and the CONGRESS kept passing budgets with deficits from then on.

The War in Iraq constitutes 5% of the Federal Budget. While expensive, it is not the reason why the Federal debt is so big. The war could easily be paid for by controlling government spending. While I'm against the war for both Fiscal and other reasons, to blame the war for the governments overspending is foolish.

In 2003 the war cost ~$60 billion per year, it's probably as high as 100 billion per year now.
USATODAY.com - Monthly costs of Iraq, Afghan wars approach that of Vietnam

$100 Billion / $3 Trillion = ~ 3.3% of the Federal budget, 5% was a liberal estimate

This is far from the first war the United States has been instigated, and that a President has gotten us into where it could have been avoided. We have a long tradition of this. From FDR's cutting off oil to Japan knowing full well it would lead to war, to the Tonkin Gulf lies. Lying to get into war is nothing new.

The tax cuts were a strong stimulator. Blame the Congress for not reeling in spending. The President merely proposes a budget, the Congress is what actually makes and passes the budget. As a point of interest, the Democratic Congress has been just as reckless as the Republican Congress in passing budgets with monster deficits.

To blame Bush for everything that goes wrong is to scape goat. Blame him for things he is legitimately at fault for, but don't try to pass off the failures of others as his.

__________________

jpn of Seattle

And when what he believes is best for the country turns out to be a bloody disaster, then that makes him a failure, not a hero.

Caltex

Let's blame Bush for the Economy!!! The President obviously controls the economy, and better yet, laws and government actions all have an immediate effect, they aren't delayed several years, no not at all.

The President does not control the economy. Coming up with charts like that only proves one thing, the 1990's economy was better than the 2000's.

__________________

jpn of Seattle

Apparently not.

jpn of Seattle

Hey Cal, I was replying to another poster who made the claim that Bush deserves credit for the economy.

But thanks for posting my graphs again. Maybe with repetition it will start to sink in...